British Army Chief warns UK and allies facing '1937 moment'(youtube.com)
youtube.com
British Army Chief warns UK and allies facing '1937 moment'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99iFAW9fvh8
9 comments
Russia induced the conflict by invading Ukraine. There is no “self-righteousness” here; this conflict is unusually simple: there is an invading side, trying to destroy a nation, and there is a defending side.
And just like before 1939, trying to negotiate at this point would be a mistake. Letting Russia survive 1990 in its current shape was already a mistake.
And just like before 1939, trying to negotiate at this point would be a mistake. Letting Russia survive 1990 in its current shape was already a mistake.
It is not serving any purpose to demonstrate that your one-liner summary is not corresponding to the reality of the long history of US-RU posturing that resulted into the situation today. There is only one factual truth in that line, which does not unpack into your second and third conclusions.
What I do want to react to is you last sentence to point out that this is exactly the "self-righteousness" I point out in the narrative which that posted video repeats (it is an old one). It is your god given right to hold that view irrespective of anything, Im just pointing out when talking about state-state interaction such attitude leads only to one outcome, total war. And this is exactly where we are headed...
What I do want to react to is you last sentence to point out that this is exactly the "self-righteousness" I point out in the narrative which that posted video repeats (it is an old one). It is your god given right to hold that view irrespective of anything, Im just pointing out when talking about state-state interaction such attitude leads only to one outcome, total war. And this is exactly where we are headed...
So how this “posturing” justifies Russian invasion and genocide?
It’s not about gods. Is about the fact that Russia is the aggressor, and the West is helping the victim. Fixing the historical mistake of post-1990 Russia is just a byproduct.
It’s not about gods. Is about the fact that Russia is the aggressor, and the West is helping the victim. Fixing the historical mistake of post-1990 Russia is just a byproduct.
It is very clear where you stand from the first post. My comments are not to persuade you away from the blood you imply has to be shed. I comment to provide a different angle, angle where certain principles and values which are the greatest accomplishment of the west are not denounced and ignored in the self-righteous campaign against self-induced 'evil'. For that, the proper force-field of the situation has to be taken into account...
In general we have to get this wrong logic out of any meaningful discussion, the false logic that uncovering/admitting error is the same as discovering a truth. It is not so. We can very well be both wrong, in a degree or kind.
By saying that US actively, purposefully and with full knowledge that its actions/policies will lead to this conflict engaged in them, does not mean that RU aggression is justified by that fact. It is simply matter of consequence, not of morality (states have no morals, they have interests). The moral dimension is only used against civilian population by powers-to-be to confuse them and do their bidding for them (Herman Goering during Nuremberg trials summarized it well before committing suicide).
In other words, West is waging a (proxy) war against RU through UA, which is the bottom line. This is by self-admission by eg. Max Boot of WP (washington post) or many such articles in the New-Yorker (Robing Wright), or even top politicians representative like Seth Moulton (US congressman) openly said it is a proxy war. I can quote perhaps 3-4 dozens of other studies, documentaries, or articles going back years. Btw: Amy Goodman of democracy now has a nice peace on this as well. Basically, the proxy war idea is now normalized and put into moral dimension in the minds of people, and your own comments echo this narrative that has been craftily put up for you.
Nevertheless, the point is that by starting from the proper recognition of the force-fields of this conflict, the dialogue between us (and much more importantly among elite decision makers) will change. It is irresponsible to use frivolously remarks about total war as the best option out of the given situation. It is not in anyone's interest (civilian population anywhere on the planet). To not explore way to peace, to diplomacy and principle of non-aggression from either party (UA military is not innocent of war-crimes despite lack of reporting in the west) is irresponsible by free citizens of humanity and civilization. That is it. Eventually, when enough civilians are dead on either or both sides the war will cease. Why not to work toward stopping it before then?
In general we have to get this wrong logic out of any meaningful discussion, the false logic that uncovering/admitting error is the same as discovering a truth. It is not so. We can very well be both wrong, in a degree or kind.
By saying that US actively, purposefully and with full knowledge that its actions/policies will lead to this conflict engaged in them, does not mean that RU aggression is justified by that fact. It is simply matter of consequence, not of morality (states have no morals, they have interests). The moral dimension is only used against civilian population by powers-to-be to confuse them and do their bidding for them (Herman Goering during Nuremberg trials summarized it well before committing suicide).
In other words, West is waging a (proxy) war against RU through UA, which is the bottom line. This is by self-admission by eg. Max Boot of WP (washington post) or many such articles in the New-Yorker (Robing Wright), or even top politicians representative like Seth Moulton (US congressman) openly said it is a proxy war. I can quote perhaps 3-4 dozens of other studies, documentaries, or articles going back years. Btw: Amy Goodman of democracy now has a nice peace on this as well. Basically, the proxy war idea is now normalized and put into moral dimension in the minds of people, and your own comments echo this narrative that has been craftily put up for you.
Nevertheless, the point is that by starting from the proper recognition of the force-fields of this conflict, the dialogue between us (and much more importantly among elite decision makers) will change. It is irresponsible to use frivolously remarks about total war as the best option out of the given situation. It is not in anyone's interest (civilian population anywhere on the planet). To not explore way to peace, to diplomacy and principle of non-aggression from either party (UA military is not innocent of war-crimes despite lack of reporting in the west) is irresponsible by free citizens of humanity and civilization. That is it. Eventually, when enough civilians are dead on either or both sides the war will cease. Why not to work toward stopping it before then?
How is this the West waging war against Russia and not the other way around? Usually it's the attacking side who's "waging war", not the defending one. Or are you going to claim Russia is not the attacker here?
Also, we're not talking about "total war". Total war would be a war between world powers. In this conflict there's only one world power: USA. The opponent is losing war against Ukraine; it wouldn't stand a chance against coalition of better armed countries.
Also, we're not talking about "total war". Total war would be a war between world powers. In this conflict there's only one world power: USA. The opponent is losing war against Ukraine; it wouldn't stand a chance against coalition of better armed countries.
This has been a civilized exchange of views, so that is good. I am totally fine with and understand your point of view very well, as this is the epitom of the "west" narrative that dates to before the Wolfowitz-Cheney doctrine. It is only reinforced in the context of this conflict.
Your attention seems to be to cast the conflict in therm of us-vs-them, good-vs-evil, you are with us or against us. I oppose this for well known reasons. Especially this very conflict, this is simply a false dichotomy and has no basis for understanding the situation, and having a conversation about it. Not only as a logic fallacy, but simply from the facts and history how we got to this point. Im not taking anything away from your firm conviction in the USA's superiority and its view of inherent primacy of its interests above all and everyone else. Im interested in peace, and want to understand what is it in the narrative of the West (not that I do not have opinion on it, just want to see other's views) that peace is so frowned upon or so aggressively dismissed out of a discussion.
There is no doubt as to whether RU pulled the first trigger, I never said anything contrary to that. However, as I explained already in three posts, the "morals" you seems to insists on as a basis of understanding and discussing it are not contained in that fact alone. Or in other words, neither RU is justified in attacking nor is "West" justified designing and pursuing the kind of foreign policies having full knowledge that it will lead to RU to attack (to this point I recommend published notes of the current CIA director, or any of the journals of foreign policy available online). It is simply a matter of consequence, not of morals/justifications from this angle.
So, after all that here we are, RU have attacked and West continues the proxy war as close to total war (financial, economic, information, cultural, diplomatic, weapons, operatives, etc) as one can get without putting "boots-on the ground" (although, that is hardly not the case as the smallest google search will inform you there are more than enough CIA and other operatives on the ground in UA). Hence, as no side really rides the moral high-horse, why to continue killing people instead of pursuing peace? What is the plan and/or should be the plan ? For whom is war better than peace? [if not tactical plan, which is still very difficult to outline; based on which principles you argue to continue and escalate the war over negotiating a peace ?]
Your attention seems to be to cast the conflict in therm of us-vs-them, good-vs-evil, you are with us or against us. I oppose this for well known reasons. Especially this very conflict, this is simply a false dichotomy and has no basis for understanding the situation, and having a conversation about it. Not only as a logic fallacy, but simply from the facts and history how we got to this point. Im not taking anything away from your firm conviction in the USA's superiority and its view of inherent primacy of its interests above all and everyone else. Im interested in peace, and want to understand what is it in the narrative of the West (not that I do not have opinion on it, just want to see other's views) that peace is so frowned upon or so aggressively dismissed out of a discussion.
There is no doubt as to whether RU pulled the first trigger, I never said anything contrary to that. However, as I explained already in three posts, the "morals" you seems to insists on as a basis of understanding and discussing it are not contained in that fact alone. Or in other words, neither RU is justified in attacking nor is "West" justified designing and pursuing the kind of foreign policies having full knowledge that it will lead to RU to attack (to this point I recommend published notes of the current CIA director, or any of the journals of foreign policy available online). It is simply a matter of consequence, not of morals/justifications from this angle.
So, after all that here we are, RU have attacked and West continues the proxy war as close to total war (financial, economic, information, cultural, diplomatic, weapons, operatives, etc) as one can get without putting "boots-on the ground" (although, that is hardly not the case as the smallest google search will inform you there are more than enough CIA and other operatives on the ground in UA). Hence, as no side really rides the moral high-horse, why to continue killing people instead of pursuing peace? What is the plan and/or should be the plan ? For whom is war better than peace? [if not tactical plan, which is still very difficult to outline; based on which principles you argue to continue and escalate the war over negotiating a peace ?]
Thank you, likewise :-)
The western policy that lead RU to attack was the policy of doing nothing. We've seen that in 2014. In fact this was the approach the West took every single time the perpetrator was Russia. Thus it's now evident that the only working way for long-lasting peace with Russia is to make sure it's no longer capable of invading.
The western policy that lead RU to attack was the policy of doing nothing. We've seen that in 2014. In fact this was the approach the West took every single time the perpetrator was Russia. Thus it's now evident that the only working way for long-lasting peace with Russia is to make sure it's no longer capable of invading.
Does he mean the one when Chamberlain convinced Czech Republic to give its larger army to Germany, it's superior tank factories, concede territory to both Germany and Poland, to rescind the security guarantees the SSSR gave to Czechia ?
And then "pikachu" face when Hitler proceeded to invade Czechia with the same tanks they were given 2 years earlier, as did Poland, then second "pikachu face" when the Reich and SSSR did the same to Poland a minute later ?
That 1937 moment of titanic hypocritical behaviour ?
Englishmen really always love to play the Great Game, no matter the century...
And then "pikachu" face when Hitler proceeded to invade Czechia with the same tanks they were given 2 years earlier, as did Poland, then second "pikachu face" when the Reich and SSSR did the same to Poland a minute later ?
That 1937 moment of titanic hypocritical behaviour ?
Englishmen really always love to play the Great Game, no matter the century...
Both ideologies are as of now just different sides of the same coin. Both, east or west vision of the future are utterly authoritarian, full-spectrum control over population (through digital fin-tech), and dominance in economic-military matters over neighbors. Cooperation will be fragile and shallow. The rhetoric is on both side in absolutes, with no recognition of their own actions playing any role in other's reactions. It appears the western elites especially are in the mode of perpetual escalation, finding anything to use as a vector of provocation or humiliation.
As long as there is no peace talks, no speeches for peace, self-restraint and reason, I see no hope. I know of no elite, no politicians or a political party in EU or US that wants peace. NB! Of cause practical state and economic matters have to be solved through appropriate diplomatic channels, Im not advocating infant's view of peace here, but the practical one. One, that takes years to establish even when peace speeches are delivered daily. Instead, we are pumped for war, more encompassing war, more of a total war. A kind of war that nobody (civilians) want on either side of the proverbial barricade.